Talk:Aukštieji Paneriai

Lithuania Mid‑importance

	Lithuania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Review comments: No references. --Lysy^talk 20:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namings

I've wrote this message to another Talk, but here it is again:

There was a very nice discusion over similar topic (I think Polich-German naming) and I think they have reached agreement about that:

In English WP english naming (englisized current names) should be used for all cities regardless historical period (eg. Vilnius will always be Vilnius (not Wilno or Vilna), and Gdansk (not Danzig), and Kaunas (not Kowno) and etc.)

The same rule applies to all namings, ex. rivers, lakes, regions, mountains and etc.

"Namings of other languages and/or periods can be (and must be, in case of dispute) mentioned in main describing article

I dont want to be as Zivi, so I think we should decide what naming convention should we use and use it strictly. eLNuko 15:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

including 7,500 Polish POWs shot in 1941

What is the source of it? Xx236 14:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Czieslaw Michalski. Dr. Dan 15:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that person. Appears reliable. Although we should note he doesn't clearly states the nationality of the POWs, only mentions them in the paragraph about the Polish victims. I did further digging and I found another source (unfortunatly it looks least reliable of all our sources so far - i.e. least likely to be peer reviewed) with the number of 7500 POWs, but it claims they are Soviet - I have adjusted the text accordingly (and it makes some sense, Germans didn't actually shoot Polish POWs like that often (they preffered the POW camps for regular soldiers), not to mention the data (1941) is also telling). Still, more sources on that would be appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better sources and research (not a newspaper article or magazine) would be more credible, and third a party source would be even more reliable, but P.P knows that...--Lokyz 19:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrowski's reliability was discussed here [mediation], and other Polish sources like these need to be scrutinized. So I suggest finding a third party source, as per Yannismarou's suggestion - although, removing info the way Piotrus did is not recommended to any party, because it's POV pushing.--Lokyz 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No serious arguments against reliablity of Piotrowski were presented. Feel free to 'examine' the reliablity of sources presented here by listing in detail what you find dubious or unreliable about them - other, of course, then them being Polish. On the other hand, plenty of arguments against reliability of Vilnija revalations were presented. If you continue to put Western academics on the same level as local hate group propaganda, don't expect others to take your comments or edits seriously.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated how you are dissapointed with OT discussions, yet you are bringing up Vilnija here. It's about as relevant as bringing up the Kielce pogrom. I'm not going to bring up the Jedwabne massacre for the same reason that it would be OT here, even though the events being debated are more related than Vilnija. Dr. Dan 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dan, it is Lokyz who brought up the removed (Vilnija) referenes issue. And yes, I agree that it is OT issue which bears little relevance here - alas, ask Lokyz, not me, why he perefers to bring OT issues instead of discussing the matter at hand.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm more concerned with the source you provided that does not confirm your objections to my disputing the assertion regarding 7,500 Polish POWs being killed here. In fact it seems to confirm this. BTW, the only reference to Vilnija on this talk page is from you. Dr. Dan 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm more concerned with your denials that Poles and Russians died in that massacre. As for the 7500 POWs, I don't see the problem: the article no longer claims they were Polish but uses a source which claim they were Soviet. Unless you have any source to dispute that, the matter is closed. As for Vilnija, again, it was Lokyz who brought up the question of my removal of references, and the only case that comes to mind in our related discussions is my objectiosn to using Vilnija as a reliable reference.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you can't understand the problem. Hopefully it's not a language issue. The operative words regarding my edits were mostly and Polish POWS. The victims were mostly Jews, and the POWS were not Polish POWS. These are not denials, but facts of the matter. As for the claim of them being Polish, the article no longer claims they were Polish POWS , is not thanks to you, but to me. Your original attempt to interject the magazine article as a "source" for Xx236's query about the 7,500 Polish POWS was untrue and innaccurate. The problem is when these attempts to use what resembles the Big Lie technique are left unchallenged, people unaware of the facts are left, to wonder whether or not they are true. I'll assume good faith and let it go as a semantical or language issue, rather than a deliberate attempt to misinform. Although this should now be clearer to all concerned, I have little expectation for any apologies or agreement that I am correct. Dr. Dan 18:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dan, I am sorry to brush you with reality, alas, your claims are simply not true. That the article on longer claims that the POWs were Polish is due to efforts of Xx236 who raised this question above, and myself finding the relevant source(s) and correcting that in the article. Your 'contributions' to the article were primarily based on removing data from it without any references to back it up. I am still waiting to hear why you decied to remove information about Polish and Russian victims from the lead.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the word mostly. Dr. Dan 00:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

some improvements

I suggest to study some improvements by Dr. Dan, eg. the removal of the information about non-Jewish victims. I believe that such important changes should be discussed here before, not imposed. Xx236 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add any referenced info--Lokyz 20:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lokyz. 7,500 Polish POWS killed here? A reference to this "fact" needs to be provided or an immediate retraction is in order, and an apology for this Big Lie needs to be made. Even Davies doesn't cross that kind of a line. And Xx236, please do not diminish the horrors of the Jewish victims, by trying to divert attention to non-Jewish victims that are just propaganda. 7,500 Polish POWS were not killed here, and this nonsense only gives ammunition to those who would deny true examples of Polish POWS who were murdered while in captivity. And now for your references? Dr. Dan 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please do not involve me into disputable things - I did not state anything, i did not remove anything. Dr.Dan there are tags for unreferenced statements {{fact}} or {{dubious}} - please do not remove things you do not like, instead tag them for referencing. --Lokyz 23:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to you were only for asking for references, nothing else. Dr. Dan 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236, I have studied the improvements - feel free to notify me or the WP:PWNB about similar incidents in the future. I trust that the references I provided should satisfy any doubts about "facts" that indeed, many Poles were killed in the Ponary massacre (this article, btw, should be split off, the subject is certainly notable enough to deserve an article of its own). Now we shall wait for the apology from Dr. Dan about the "Big Lie" accusation, as well as for his removal of the mention of Polish and Russian victims from the lead and his calling of the murder of 7500 POWs nonesense.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many Soviet POWs were murdered, but I bet their nationality wasn't Russian. Eventually the majority was Russian, but certainly not all of them. I don't know anything about Polish POWs, the victims were members of many underground organizations. including scouts. Xx236 09:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet is the term used in text, and I believe it is better?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Do to the expansion of the events concerning this tragedy, it has transcended the scope of the geographical entity of Paneriai. It is unfair to the inhabitants of this town to make this event its end all, and be all. The people currently living there do not have to make these events the central focus of their lives, any more than the current residents of Kielce need to focus on the Kielce pogrom as the major event of their lives. In the former case, the inhabitants were under a brutal occupation, in a brutal war, with no oportunity to militarily oppose it. Let these events be recounted in a specific article dealing primarily with them. The article about the town can have the appropriate links to find them. Dr. Dan 03:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I agree that this deserves a separate article, and only a summary section should be left here. It's a shame that nobody had found a time to work on this article in the context of it's general history or even more important, architecture, administration, and other elements one would usually expect to find in an article about a quarter. That leaves the question of how should the new article be called.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Paneriai massacre" - 13 Google hits, "massacre in Paneriai" 2 hits, no Google Print hits for neither
Ponary massacre - 4 Google hits, 2 Google Print hits, "massacre in Ponary - 6 Google hits, 1 Google Print hit.

Suggestions?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ponary+Holocaust - 103 books, Panerai+Holocaust - 3 books. As it is obvious in the context of massacre which names is more popular, I will soon create the relevant article at Ponary massacre.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion of splinting the article is quite recent event, probably not all contributors stated opinion, and the name issue was not discussed at all before splinting. So discussion should go before any active steps. M.K. 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the above criteria, and although I must say "google hits" are not my favorite method of measuring the basis of naming an article, the presenter of these facts ( of the % of google hits), shows "Paneriai massacre" to outnumber "Ponary massacre". Then he names the article Ponary (Poonary {sic}) massacre anyway. Since the article is not named Ponary+Holocaust, is this logical? Go figure. Dr. Dan 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Google Print is a much serious comparison, and it shows that Ponary is the proper name. And M.K, I am sorry, if you or other editors don't have time or will to edit Wikipedia, don't criticize those who do.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native speaker, so I may be wrong, but I understand massacre as something what happened once, during a short period of time, eg. Kaunas massacre, Jedwabne massacre. Killings during years aren't in my opinion a massacre. See also Massacre, which confirms my position. Xx236 10:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this at the talk of the relevant article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Families of the victims against the executioners

According to the last issue of Gazeta Polska IPN refused to accuse Lithuanian executioners of Ponary. Families of many victims appealed. Xx236 14:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this at the talk of the relevant article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not balanced

As this articles biggest part is about killings, which presented not in NOPV way, for argumentation see: Talk:Ponary_massacre. M.K. 10:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct tag for such a case is 'expand, not 'npov'. I suggest on your talk page alraedy that you should familiarize yourself with what WP:NPOV is. To be clear: article which concentrate on one aspect but should concentrate on many is not POVed, only underdeveloped.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

name

Oh come on. This one's obvious: Ponary: [2] 771 hits Paneriai: [3] 575 hits. Given the fact that this was a site of mass extermination of Poles and Jews (as well as Lithuanians), the Polish and Yiddish (or Hebrew) name obviously belongs in here.radek (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about at least discussing it first before reverting?radek (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gbooks is not a library. It's a compromise with copyright holders (who do not necessary have the best/newest/most informative books). It's a marketing thing, not a reliability] thing. Please, do not use that argument again. Read the books, not just google them. Best regards.--Lokyz (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Wiki policy does not require Gbooks to be a library. It requires that 10% of the English language sources use the name. Which Gbooks shows they obviously do. All the hits at Gbooks are reliable sources - or is this under dispute?radek (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say that scientific methods are not important, while there is gbooks smelling of marketing and sales?--Lokyz (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?radek (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing and pro-profit Corporations like a Google Inc.. It's rather strange to hear a question like that from someone who claims to have a degree in economics. --Lokyz (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're losing me even more. I guess you have a problem with Google books in general, because Google is a private company. Are you trying to say that some Poles paid off Google to include these hits to "Ponary" in their search? I'm really confused here about what it is you have a problem with. Are the hits from Google books reliable sources or not?radek (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what is "smelling of marketing and sales"? Who's smelling whom and where here? Are you trying to say something is stinky? What? What is this about???radek (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google_books#Copyright_infringement.2C_fair_use_and_related_issues and also Google_books#Language_issues. Library, eh?--Lokyz (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. But it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.radek (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

The editor Radeksz likes to dispense advice, and inform anyone that he has a dispute with what Wiki policy is all about. At this talk page we are asked ..."How about at least discussing it first before reverting? radek ..." Unfortunately Radeksz doesn't like to heed his own advice. A day or two ago he blindly reverted my latest edit at the Lithuanization article. It concerned the Selonians, Jotvingians, Nadruvians, and Curonians. Rather than asking me to come up with a citation confirming that these tribes shared cultural, linguistic, and religious affiliations with Lithuanians (and btw, Prussians) which they indisputably did, he chose to blindly revert me. Now really, Radeksz, try to be a little more objective, and even a little more consistent in your approach to subjects that you are involved with. You like to cushion your more controversial edits with some blather about WP:AGF. It's my opinion that you are becoming more and more biased in your editing and are bordering on disrupting the project. Once again, you might want to back off and spend your talents improving the WP project rather than wasting everybody's time with a lot of nonsense. If this article has a link to Polish Wikipedia (it does) our readers are one click away from getting the "indispensable" information as to what the Polish language geographical toponym is for this suburb of Lithuania's capital is. Meanwhile the pertinent information considering the crimes committed here, remains here. Nothing wrong with that. It's becoming obvious that your recent activities concerning Lithuanian related articles have an agenda that is more questionable than your claims that your are abiding by Wiki policies. Hits at Gbooks? Yeah, right. That's what this is all about. You've got to be joking. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a very politely worded personal attack (despite what some think politeness and personal attacks are not mutually exclusive) - accusing me of not contributing to the project when in fact I have edited and created numerous articles, accusing me of being disruptive where in fact I always try to engage in talk and discussion on controversial topics. I note that my concerns about following Wiki policy on this article are completely ignored and Dr. Dan is once again just trying to change the subject.radek (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have no "dispute with what Wiki policy is all about" - again! What are you talking about! I actually think that Wiki policy is actually pretty good and I am only trying to make sure it is being followed here and on other articles. Wiki policy is fine, it's the people who break it or ignore it (like Dr. Dan and Lokyz) that are the trouble.radek (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about personal attacks you've just gave a classic example [4]. An apology would be appropriate.--Lokyz (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, that's not a personal attack. I'm asking you to elaborate your statement because I don't understand what you are saying (honestly, I don't).radek (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Radeksz, it's not about Wiki policy, nor were my remarks a personal attack. Thanks for acknowledging my attempts to be polite. Sometimes you do try one's patience. First question: did you tell Lokyz .... "How about at least discussing it first before reverting?..."? Second question: Did you "blindly revert me at the Lithuanization article. Third question: Were you following Wiki policy when you did that? Fourth question: Would you consider your advice to be consistent and worth following? Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dan, once again you are trying to derail this discussion from the matter at hand - the inclusion of alternative name in this article, and the relevant Wikipedia policy - to completely irrelevant matters. How about we come back to that. (Yes, No, Yes, Yes).radek (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radeksz, why are my remarks "irrelevant"? How has this discussion been "derailed"? If you want to wrap yourself around Wiki policies, then you need to adhere to them. On August 2nd you placed an edit summary at this article..."(please at least make an effort to discuss this at talk first rather than blind-reverting)"... I wanted to bring to your attention, the fact that you did precisely just that yourself to a recent edit of mine. I think it's very relevant. In response to your other question, Ponary is not an alternative name for Paneriai in English, it is a foreign language variant. Rzym is not an alternative name for Rome in English, while Kraków is an alternative name for Cracow. That's the difference. Dr. Dan (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is not even a foreign name - it's Polonized Lithuanian name. It's simple Pa-neriai literally means near Neris, a river that in Polish language is called Wilia. Ergo the foreign name should be Powilje or something like that.--Lokyz (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not blind revert you - I explained the reason for my edit - so don't say that I did. That's the difference.

Well, it is. It's like with Danzig and Gdańsk. --Lysy^talk 18:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I advise to discuss the article and not other editors. --Lysy^talk 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And Wiki policy says that if at least 10% of the sources use the name it can be included in the article in parentheses after the main name. There's no getting around that.radek (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lysy, long time since I've had the pleasure. Radeksz, what makes you so certain that Lysy wasn't referring to you? Or to both of us? Dr. Dan (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

name, again

Please see the discussion, with a requested 3O over at Birze [5]. Likewise a simple google search yields 3,830 for "Ponary Lithuania" [6] and 7,640 for Paneriai Lithuania [7]. So that's about 1/3 of all English sources. The specific guideline states [[8]:

other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, . Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out,. and per Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted

Note that in addition the 10% guideline we also have that "Ponary" was used by, well, TWO groups of people (Poles and Jews) who used to inhabit, and were massacred at, this geographical place. For comparison, Oświęcim, does obviously (and rightly) list "Auschwitz", as well as many other names, in its lede.radek (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) As if every English reader of Wikipedia is really dying to know what the Polish name for tiny, or large, neighborhoods in Lithuania's capital, Vilnius are. I could live with these repeated provocations, Talk:Šnipiškės, Talk:Verkiai, Talk:Žvėrynas, and on and on, and over and over, if the basis of this waste of time was to improve the WP Encyclopedia or increase general knowledge. But you and I know that's not the reason. Wiki policy isn't either. Incidentally, I suppose you have heard of the concept of the "Letter and spirit of the law". If not, you should read up on it. Twisting Wiki policy with your often skewed interpretation of "google" hits for either some kind of nationalistic satisfaction or to provoke other contributors does not serve the "spirit" behind Wiki policy. Wiki policy is only the new angle. I remember the old angle was something like "Lithuanian cities and towns were part of the PLC, the official language of the PLC was Polish, therefore the Polish language geographical toponym belongs in the ledes of the major Lithuanian cities and towns". Incidentally, why do you suppose the Kielce massacre is not in the lede of the Kielce article? Have a beautiful weekend. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what English readers of Wikipedia are dying to know? These are not provocations and I resent that implication. They are providing encyclopedic knowledge per Wikipedia guideline - should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. How am I "twisting" google hits? I am inventing them? Am I lying about them? Am I in any way manipulating them? No, I am merely presenting them and again, I take offense at your personal attack. My motivations are not "nationalistic satisfaction" nor an intention to "provoke" other editors. That's a third personal attack and an empty accusation you manage to squeeze in there. I have no idea what "old angle" you're talking about - I think you're confusing me with someone else.

Finally, will you please actually adress the relevant Wikipedia policy rather than making up new red herrings?radek (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3O

I'm gonna go ahead and ask for a third opinion, even though we already had one over at Birze.radek (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas also note that the dispute is NOT about changing this article's name or including the alternative name in bold but simply to adding it to the article in parentheses in the lede.radek (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the inclusion of the Polish/Yiddish and historical name ("Ponary") of the town, in parentheses in the lead. Per [9] other names, especially those used significantly often (say, 10% of the time or more) in the available English literature on a place, past or present, should be mentioned in the article, as encyclopedic information. Two or three alternate names can be mentioned in the first line of the article; it is general Wikipedia practice to bold them so they stand out. and per [10] Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. Please note that:

1. Google book search indicates that

Ponary: [11] 771 hits

Paneriai: [12] 575 hits. 771 hits out of 771+575 is clearly more than the 10% recommended by the guideline. In fact it is more than 50%.

To exclude non relevant hits

"Ponary Lithuania" - [13] 617 hits

"Paneriai Lithuania" - [14] 451 hits

Still more than 50%

2. Google scholar

"Ponary Lithuania" - [15] 135 hits "Paneriai Lithuania" - [16] 115 hits

3. General Google search

"Ponary Lithuania" - [17] 3,860 hits "Paneriai Lithuania" - [18] 8,900 hits

So here Paneriai does better (probably due to inclusion of weather websites and the like) but 3860 is still more than 10% of total hits.

4. The place was historically inhabited by many Poles, Jews and Belarussians, in addition to Lithuanians.

5. The place is best known as an execution site during World War II of Jews and Poles which is an additional reason to include the Polish and Yiddish name. For example the article for the Polish town of Oświęcim (Aushwitz) rightly includes the Yiddish name of the town. Same principle should apply here.

6. We had a very similar dispute over at Biržai, asked for third opinion and the third opinion was that the name should be included. I'm actually not sure why we need to go through this again since the usage of "Ponary" in English language sources is overwhelming but am trying to be AGF here.

7. There's plenty of precedent for this. The articles on the Polish cities of Wrocław, Szczecin, Kołobrzeg, Bydgoszcz, Bytom and many, many, many others all include an alternative name in German according to the above policies. Lithuanian alternative names are included in the articles on Polish cities of Białystok, Suwałki, as well as for numerous Belarussian cities and towns. Personally I support the inclusion of the alternative names in all of these cases. Consistency requires that the same be true on this article.

8. At the end of the day, this is simply adding encyclopedic information to the article.radek (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the Polish cities of Wrocław, Szczecin, Kołobrzeg, Bydgoszcz, Bytom - are you really sure, that Breslaw, Stettin and other cities of the Recovered territories were Polish?--Lokyz (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...??..??Lokyz...what are you talking about?--Jacurek (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Jacurek here - I have no idea what you are trying to say.radek (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I understand him quite clearly. But let me help you out. I know that you are of the opinion that Vilnius is, was, and will "eternally" be a Polish city. He's only asking if you think the same of Breslau, Stettin, and the other cities that Stalin was gracious enough to give Poland, and referred to in Communist Poland as the Recovered territories. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I missed this one. I do not think at all that Vilnius is, was, and will "eternally" be a Polish city - where are you getting this nonsense from? Where have I supposedly said this? Seriously, please stop making crap up.radek (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German names are there in the articles you mentioned, so should pe the Polish in this.--Mikej007 (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mike, you are right... but I would like to point out to you that the subject of this discussion has been already switched and now the issue is either user Radeksz regards the city of Vilnius to be eternally a Polish city or not. These words are put into Radeksz mouth...now hopefully we will focus on something else moving away from the issue of Polish names being censored form all Polish Lithuanian related pages. :) Happy editing...:)--Jacurek (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed? Krakow, Gdansk, Lublin, Augustow and all the others on the list are they censored also?--Lokyz (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..and what you are talking about now??????All the cities you have listed above have their names spelled in other languages...you know what Lokyz.. sorry but I'm really tired of this nonsense and I will stop answering to your posts for a while, bye for now.--Jacurek (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go Mike....[[19]] another name in Polish gone with the wind..:) Happy editing.--Jacurek (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

It always strikes me as amazing how many disputes on wikipedia are related to things like what language we list a town's name in. I have a question: there seems to be a clear ulterior issue here, involving some kind of ethnic conflict. Furthermore, this appears to be primarily a dispute between editors and not an actual content dispute. I do not want to fan those flames, but could someone explain - without using words like fascist or genocide or propaganda or anything like that - why we should NOT list an alternate name? All I've seen so far are arguments in favor of listing the alternate name, based primarily on the rule of 10% of google hits, and arguments against the validity of the google hits. But that doesn't change the fact that the alternate name exists. What are the reasons NOT to use this name? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly WHY???????? Perhaps users Lokyz and Dr.Dan who are behind removal of ALL alternative names from ALL articles related to Lithuanian-Polish history would comment on it with something which actually makes sense? :)--Jacurek (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to help you to put Lithuanian , Russian, German, Hungarian and Czech names to the Polish cities leads. Would you go for it? They share some history also and have a slight different versions of namings - speaking about all cities, as it is suggested. One should wonder how long would they last. BTW Ponary isn't alternative name, it's phonetically altered name of clear Lithuanian origins.--Lokyz (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but that is not a productive answer. We are not trying to accuse anybody of being racist or crazy. I am looking for a substantive reason, and if you don't think there is one, I understand that, but let's not make everybody more irritated.Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, sorry about that, we just have such a long history of arguing about it that I allowed myself to be a little sarcastic here. Nothing can be said here anymore that it was not said before, just look at the history of Polish-Lithuanian related pages, if you have time of course and I will warn you, you would need a lot of time :). Hours and hours of endless discussions and arguments about such a simple and little thing ... an alternative name of Lithuanian city in Polish language. "Strangely" the issue is always and ONLY in cases of Polish names of Lithuanian cities which once were Polish or Lithuanian personalities of shared Polish-Lithuanian history etc... never vise-versa. :) All Polish names are ALWAYS deleted by the above editors. God bless them... and God help me to understand the reasons behind such behavior.--Jacurek (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and just look how quickly the Polish name will be removed from this article... sometimes by the "strange" Anon who appears from nowhere and goes straight to "work" :) and it does not matter that the town have such a strong Polish connection.. The name will be removed. I can almost guarantee it! :)--Jacurek (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just look now what will happen after my latest edition and remember, Ponary (Paneriai) where thousands of Poles and Jews were murdered and Vilnius (Wilno) were Polish towns before the Second World War...:)--Jacurek (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEE!!! I TOLD YOU!! It did not last even an hour before being deleted by the "strange" Anon...:)--Jacurek (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't give up on Wiki Policies. If it will be needed, I'll ask for article protection.--Mikej007 (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Reasons

I'd like to respond to User:Dmz5's reasonable request. You are correct..."there seems to be a clear ulterior issue here". It's important to distinguish the difference between an "alternate" name and a foreign language variant of a locality. Just as États-Unis is not an alternate name for the United states of America, Cracovie is not an alternate name for Cracow. Not in English anyway. Many editors, especially those unfamiliar with the history of these areas might look at this conundrum incredulously and ask themselves what's the big deal. The quite small country of Lithuania having regained its independence after 50 years of dictatorial rule, it's capital being annexed for twenty years, it's independence restored after 123 years of obliteration due to the stupidity of it's partner would of course be sensitive to "neighbors" attempting to reinstate their variants of Lithuanian geographical toponyms. One day it's due to Google hits. On another day it's because it was the "official" language of an entity created 440 years ago (that has long ceased to exist). Each article on Wikipedia has its own story, each story is different. To say, hey this city has alternate names doesn't cut the mustard when not only villages hundred of miles from the Polish border are getting their "alternate" names added, but now neighborhoods need their "alternate" names added. I have long suggested that easiest solution to this dilemma is to write an article on Wikipedia in the foreign language about the subject and create a link to it. In that way we won't have to add the Hungarian language variant of Krakkó to Cracow. And Dmz5, another issue is whether these "alternate" names belong in the lead or if at all, possibly elsewhere. Placing them in the lead of the article gives them especially undue weight and is irritating. I have also less objection to linking them to some form of disambiguation somewhere in an article if it helps. Dr. Dan (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Dan..let me ask you these questions to start. Is Paneriai (Ponary), a suburb of Vilnius (Wilno), once a Polish City, were thousands of Poles and Jews were murdered during the Holocaust in Ponary massacre, hundreds of miles away from the Polish border? Don't you think that the average user unfamiliar with the history of these areas should have a right to know what this suburb was once called? Is Wikipedia being created to inform people or it is created to get Lithuanian nationalistic message across, because Lithuania regained its independence after 50 years and now should have special privileges on Wikipedia?--Jacurek (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dan, what you just said is completely WP:POV, based on your personal beliefs, which are rather irrelevant. I disagree to almost every statement that you made and especially that this is irritating. The Polish names were official names for centuries, even the Russians used them in Cyrillic scripts - the Lithuanian versions became official only in 1918/1939. Why should we erase a history of 600 years? Because Lithuanian feelings? This were the official names of those places and people have the right to now that. Same as we present the Hungarian name of Cluj and ext. This is the history of the place and it should be presented at the top of the article.--Mikej007 (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, and what you're saying does not even have an iota of POV? Six hundred years? Six hundred years of what? Of Lithuanian history? Six hundred years of Lithuanians not having Lithuanian names for geographical toponyms in Lithuania? 1918? 1939? You need to do a little research and a little less relying on stories that you heard from your grandparents. I wonder, btw, if you think placing Arabic names for the neighborhoods of Tel Aviv on English WP would be a good project to work on (not cities in Israel themselves mind you, just neighborhoods)? Personally I think it would be undue, as is the case here too. Once again..."there seems to be a clear ulterior issue here". Dr. Dan (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ready to answer my above questions Dr.Dan, but without changing the subject? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that Dmz's request for no nationalistic nonsense went unheeded. It still hasn't been explained why standard Wiki guidelines should not apply in this case. To address Dan's point - if États-Unis was widely used in English language sources then it should be included in parentheses in the lead. But it's not - so this is ... yet another ... red herring and complete irrelevancy. The rest of Dan's first post is just casting aspersions on other editors and implying nasty things about them without ever saying it (to observe the letter, if not the spirit, of the civility policy). Likewise the comparison between Tel Aviv is completely out of place here - oh, but wait in Tel Aviv article we have (Arabic: تل أبيب). Let me reiterate - this dispute is unique to Polish, Yiddish and Belarusian names in Lithuanian articles and in fact their absence is enforced by only a few, but dedicated, editors.radek (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat that États-Unis is not an alternate name for the United States in English, just as Wilno is not an alternate name for Vilnius in English. Varsovie is not an alternate name for Warsaw either. Žvėrynas is a neighborhood in Vilnius (demonstrating how far-fetched and ridiculous this is being taken), Zwierzyniec is not an alternate name used for this neighborhood. Btw, like in my Tel Aviv analogy, now I'm talking about neighborhoods being pursued, not just cities and towns. It's becoming truly surreal. I'll let Dmz comment on how his request has been heeded, not your interpretation of it. As for your "reiteration", that's one way of looking at it. Another way is..."this dispute is unique to Polish names being inserted into Lithuanian articles and in fact their undue reinsertion is enforced by only a few, but dedicated, editors. Dr. Dan (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every article on every major Polish city has German, Lithuanian, Yiddish or Russian names listed for the convenience of the readers - particularly since these cities have a complex past. But you are claiming some kind of weird exceptionalism to standard Wiki practice and guidelines for Lithuanian cities - the fact of their complex history must be hidden for some reason.radek (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, since here everything must be repeated half dozen times before it is even acknowledged - Etats Unis is not an alternate name for the US because it is not used by 10% of English language sources. Ponary is an an alternate name for Paneriai since way way way more than 10% of English language sources use it.radek (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Every article on every major Polish city has German, Lithuanian, Yiddish or Russian names listed for the convenience of the readers"...is that so? Are they presented in the leads? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sure you will manage to find one which doesn't (and as it should be obvious, there is an "or" in that sentence not an "and"). But those are going to be the exceptions. Now, explain to me why is it that Polish or Yiddish or Belarusian names must absolutely not appear in articles on Lithuanian places.radek (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, back. Let's start with the first three largest cities in Poland Warsaw, Cracow, and Lodz. Don't see any in the leads. It really wasn't that hard to find exceptions at all. While we're getting to the bottom of this mess, I especially hope that you will organize an effort to place the Yiddish names in the leads for the majority of Polish geographical toponyms. Historically, the cities of Poland had dramatic Jewish populations often even with majorities. Since there are so many of such localities it could keep you occupied while this is sorted out. Naturally, doing so would not only provide the readers of WP with this information, but it would be..."listed for the "convienience" of the readers". Dr. Dan (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look Dr.Dan, ‘‘‘historically, the cities of Lithuania had dramatic Polish populations often even with majorities as well..., please... you embarrassing yourself, why you keep going on? How many years now we are wasting our time talking about the same thing? Over and over and over, will that ever end unless we remove everything that is even slightly connected to Poland from all Lithuanian related articles??? Please...let it go....--Jacurek (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Jacurek, I'm looking, right now finished looking at Kėdainiai and Talk:Kėdainiai. Is that an appropriate example or were you thinking of Siauliai? Incidentally I don't feel embarrassed at all. Actually instead of feeling embarrassed, a lyric from a famous Lynyrd Skynyrd song comes to mind concerning all of your antics..."Now Watergate does not bother me. Does your conscience bother you? Tell me true"? ---Btw, will you help Radeksz with placing the Yiddish names in the leads of most Polish cities and towns or not? For "knowledge" and "convenience", of course. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dan, if there was an Yiddish speaking person around who would like to add alternative name in that language to the lead in Warsaw article for example I would not have any objections. Go ahead, add one if you you want. After all %35 of pre war Warsaw residents were Jewish. Can I do the same now in the Vilnius article (the lead occourse)??? :):):)--Jacurek (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw has a separate etymology section. Cracow is in Krakow. Not sure what alternative name you're proposing for Lodz, that is used in at least 10% of English language sources. But look at already mentioned Wroclaw, Szczecin, Bialystok, Lublin, Koszalin, Kolobrzeg, Torun, Bydgoszcz, Rzeszow, Poznan, Gdansk, Katowice ... etc. etc. etc. (and I'm not even sure if all those alternate names included actually ARE used in at least 10% of English language sources)radek (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, here[[20]] list of Polish cities, most if not all, with their alternative names....happy hunting for ones without, have fun. :)--Jacurek (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw as a capital city is pretty much off the table (a consensus from long ago, check with P.P.). Cracow (which you just reverted from English again claiming WP: Point, which is nonsense) is not an alternate name, It is the English name. I would find placing Litzmannstadt in the lead for Lodz, objectionable and inflammatory for obvious reasons. As to the other 12 "examples" of Polish cities that Radeksz threw in, I think many were German cities for about 800 years. In any case, I suppose that theoretically according to the arguments being presented by you, virtually every Polish toponym should include their German or Russian variant in the lead due to the partitions. If it isn't offensive, that could be another project to consider with adding the Yiddish ones. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, if there was an Yiddish speaking person around who would like to add alternative name in that language to the lead in Warsaw article for example I would not have any objections. Go ahead, add one if you you want. After all %35 of pre war Warsaw residents were Jewish. Can I do the same now in the Vilnius article (the lead occourse)???--Jacurek (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any more patience for this completely unproductive discussion, per DFTT.radek (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radeksz, as a result of your track record on WP, but more specifically due to this last violation of the WP:PA policy, I am strongly considering not having any further personal interaction with you, or answering personal inquiries from you, etc. Don't worry though, I will definitely challenge any "information" that you post on the project that is inflammatory and/or untrue. Maybe an apology from you is in order? Try getting some rest. Otherwise, Do widzenia! Dr. Dan (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, pls see Warsaw. Now, can we do the same in Vilnius article?--Mikej007 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks Mike, please do the same to Vilnius now, I'm "sure" there will be no objections:)--Jacurek (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect what? "please do the same to Vilnius now". There might be objections concerning WP: Lead and undue weight concerning the present status of the city. If you're arguing "perfect" concerning Warsaw, that's your perogative. But really Jacurek, rather than giving instructions to Mike, how about going for it yourself. Why don't you start with placing the Yiddish name for New York in the lead of that article. Not only is there a historical and cultural basis for that, but unlike Vilnius and Warsaw, the Jewish presence was not affected by the holocaust and remains strong and vibrant. So Jacurek, "please do the same to New York now". Good luck! Dr. Dan (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You all need to take a WP:CHILL. Who is materially harmed by including this information? We should strive to be as inclusive as possible. Does including this alternate name spit in the face of anybody's ancestors, really? I shouldn't continue to monitor this conversation because it is simply not productive. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

outdent) Dr. Dan, pls stop. Enough is enough. Vilnius has Polish, Belarusian and Yiddish history. Those names were official in the past and used in the present. We are trying to bring information to people, not to satisfy our nationalistic beliefs. I have to agree with Radek, its unproductive, you are bringing the most irrelevant arguments. If you want to insist, no problem - I will insist too. Finally the administrators will come and decide who's the right.--Mikej007 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC) This conversation should move to Talk:Vilnius. It's more relevant there.[reply]

Informal Mediation

A user requested informal mediation of the dispute on this page, and I am here to help. Please go here to make your case. I would like to hear what all sides have to say about this. -- Raziel teatime 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

monument, pit and tunnel

Is the tunnel the first in (geographic) Lithuania or is the the first in Russian Empire? In other words, was the first ever tunnel in the Russian Empire built in Paneriai, Lithuania, or somewhere else? If it is the first in all of Russian Empire at the time, then both (in Lithuania and Russian Empire) should be noted.

Also there's no replace the image of the monument by the image of the pit. We can ADD the image of the pit in addition to the image of the monument. If that makes for a too high image/text ratio then the obvious answer is to expand the article's text.radek (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC) nustokit det bevercius lenkiskus pavadinimus. aciu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.240.27.89 (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict

So, now that the MedCab case page for this artic;e has been closed and we have the polish and yiddish names of Paneriai in the lead, I take it the conflict has been resolved? -- Rue Ryuzaki jam 18:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paneriai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]